SANHEDRIN 37 (30 Av) - Today's study material has been dedicated by Al and Sophie Ziegler of Har Nof, Yerushalayim, in honor of the Yahrzeit of Al's father, Bernard B. Ziegler - Binyamin Baruch ben Avraham (and Miryam), which occurs on 30 Menachem Av.


תוספות ד"ה התורה העידה עלינו סוגה בשושנים

(SUMMARY: After clarifying exactly what we learn from "Sugah ka'Shoshanim", Tosfos explain why Nidah is not included in the general Isur of Yichud, which is min ha'Torah, and then qualify the concession. Then they explain the Gemara in Shabbos which does learn Nidah from Eishes Ish, though not like Rashi. And finally they explain why we learn le'Kula by the Yichud of a Nidah, but le'Chumra, regarding lying together fully-clothed).

לענין דם נדות נדרש - כשאומרת 'דם כשושנה אדומה ראיתי'; מיד פורש.

(a) Clarification #1: This is learned with regard to the blood Nidus - when the woman declares 'I saw blood that is red as a rose', and her husband immediately separates from her. (Therefore, the Gemara concludes, Yichud of a Nidah with her husband is permitted).

וא"ת, והא יחוד דאורייתא היא, כדדרשינן (לעיל דף כא:) מ"כי יסיתך אחיך בן אמך", והיכי אתא קרא דדברי קבלה למישרי מאי דכתיב באורייתא?

(b) Question: But surely, Yichud (of Arayos) is Asur min ha'Torah, as we learn from "Ki Yesischa Achicha ben Imecha", so how can a Pasuk from Kabalah (T'nach) come and permit something that the Torah forbids.

וי"ל, דלא אסרה תורה אלא כעין אמו, דלא עבידא דמשתריא, אבל נדה סופה ליטהר.

(c) Answer: The Torah forbids exclusively cases of Arayos that, like a mother, are not destined to become permitted, but not that of a Nidah, which is.

ומיהו, היכא דלא בעל אפילו נדה אסורה להתייחד, כדאמרי' בפ"ק דכתובות (דף ד.) 'לא בעל, הוא ישן בין האנשים ואשתו ישינה בין הנשים'.

1. Clarification #2: However, there where they have not yet been intimate, a Nidah too, is subject to the Isur of Yichud, as we learned in the first Perek of Kesuvos 'If they have not yet been intimate, then he sleeps among the men, and his wife, among the women.

וא"ת, והא אמרי' בפ"ק דשבת (דף יג.) 'מקיש אשתו נדה לאשת רעהו, מה אשת רעהו הוא בבגדו והיא בבגדה אסור ... ' - ופי' שם בקונט' 'משום ייחוד דאשת איש, אף אשתו נדה', והכא אמר "סוגה בשושנים"?

(d) Querying Rashi: We learned in the first Perek of Shabbos that 'we compare one's wife who is a Nadah to somebody else's wife; just as the latter, lying together is forbidden even if they are both clothed, so too his wife who is a Nidah ... '; and Rashi explains that 'the latter' is forbidden because of Yichud; whereas here we differentiate between the two due to "Sugah ka'Shoshanim"?

וי"ל, דהוא בבגדו והיא בבגדה אסורה באשת איש אפי' בלא ייחוד, משום איקרובי דעתה שנהנין ומתחממין זה מזה.

(e) Alternative Explanation: The truth of the matter is that the prohibition of lying together fully clothed is not due to Yichud, but because of the feeling of closeness, caused by the fact that they are deriving pleasure and warmth from each other.

ויש תימה, מ"ש דייחוד דנדה שרייא מ"סוגה בשושנים", והוא בבגדו והיא בבגדה אסרת מהיקש דאשת איש; איפוך אנא?

(f) Question: From where does the Gemara know that Yichud of a Nidah is permitted on account of 'Sugah ka'Shoshanim", and lying together fully-clothed is forbidden because of the comparison to the case of a married woman, and not the other way round?

וי"ל, דמסתבר טפי לאסור הוא בבגדו והיא בבגדה לפי שמתקרבין יחד ונהנין זה מזה כדפרישית.

(g) Answer: Because it is logical to forbid the latter, for the reason that we mentioned.


תוספות ד"ה וירח את ריח בגדיו

לשון 'ריח' שייך בדם נדות, כדאמרינן בס"פ כל היד (נדה דף כ:) 'ההיא איתתא דאייתא דמא קמיה דר"א; ארחיה, אמר "האי דם חימוד הוא" '.

(a) Clarification: The expression 'smell' is applicable to the blood of Nidus, like we learned in Perek Kol ha'Yad, where a woman brought blood before Rebbi Elazar, who smelt it and declared that it was the blood of Chimud (desire for her husband) and not of Nidus.



תוספות ד"ה שאין דמך מסור בידי

(SUMMARY: Tosfos proves from the sequence of two Beraisos cited in the Gemara, that the source for the ruling of not judging via Omeid is the Pasuk "al-Pi Shenayim Eidim ... ". And they go on to query as to why, on the one hand, the Beraisa does not mention the other witnesses who were with R. Shimon ben Shetach, and on the other, it uses the singular 'either you or I').

מדמייתי האי עובדא אמתני' ד'כיצד מאומד', משמע דדריש מהאי קרא דמאומד לא מיקטל, דמשמע "ע"פ שנים עדים" שראו את המעשה, ואחריני הוו עם ר"ש בן שטח.

(a) Observation: The fact that the Gemara cites this episode on the Beraisa of 'Keitzad me'Omeid?', implies that it is from this Pasuk ("al-Pi Shenayim Eidim ... ") that the Tana learns that Beis-Din cannot kill me'Omeid (by means of assessment), as it explains the Pasuk to mean that the two witnesses must have seen the act. In that case, there must have been others together with R. Shimon ben Shetach, who saw what he saw.

והאי דלא חשיב להו ...

(b) Implied Question: Then why does the Mishnah not mention them?

משום כבודו.

(c) Answer: In deference to R. Shimon ben Shetach.

והאי דקאמר 'או אני או אתה!' לאו דוקא לשון יחיד, אלא 'אנו'.

(d) Explanation: And when he then said to the murderer 'Either me or you', he really meant 'either us or you'.


תוספות ד"ה מיום שחרב בית המקדש

(SUMMARY: Tosfos discuss a number of issues: 1. Why the Gemara mentions 'from the time that Beis-Hamikdash was destroyed, seeing as there are a number of possible cases where Midah ke'Neged Midah will even whilst it stood; 2. Why it did not then ask from forty years before the Churban, when the Sanhedrin no longer judged Dinei Nefashos; 3. Seeing as the Sanhedrin did convene, why the Gemara in 'Hayu Bodkin;, queries Raban Yochanan ben Zakai; 4. Why many people did a natural death, even though they are Chayav Misah', and 5. In the case in 'ha'Po'alim', where they took out the man and his son who both had relations with a Na'arah ha'Me'urasah, why they did not punish them with stoning.)

תימה, דהוה מצי למימר דאף בזמן שבית המקדש קיים כי עובדא דשמעון בן שטח?

(a) Question #1: Why does the Gemara ask from after the Churban? It could just as well have asked from whilst it was still standing, in a case similar to that of Shimon ben Shetach ...

א"נ, שלא בעדים והתראה, כדאמר במכות (דף י:) "כאשר יאמר משל הקדמוני 'מרשעים יצא רשע' " - בב' בני אדם שהרגו, אחד הרג בשוגג ואחד הרג במזיד; הקב"ה מזמינן לפונדק ... '?

(b) Question #2: ... or from a case where there where no witnesses and warning, like we learned in Makos " ... as the ancient Mashal says 'from evil there goes out evil' " - such as two people who murdered, one be'Shogeg and one be'Meizid, both of whom Hash-m brings to the same inn ... '.

וי"ל, דנקט 'משחרב בית המקדש' משום דאז בטלי דיני נפשות לגמרי.

(c) Answer #1: The reason that it mentions 'after the Churban' is because then Dinei Nefashos became Bateil completely.

וא"ת, והא אכתי הוו מצי למינקט 'מ' שנה קודם חורבן הבית, כדאמר בפרק היו בודקין (לקמן דף מא.) שגלתה סנהדרי וישבה לה ב'חנות', ואמר שלא דנו דיני נפשות'?

(d) Question: But still, the Gemara could have said forty years prior to the Churban, which is when the Sanhedrin moved from the Lishkas ha'Gazis to the area called 'Chanus', where they stopped judging Dinei Nefashos?

וי"ל, מ"מ כשהיו רואים צורך שעה, היו חוזרין ללשכת הגזית, כי ההיא עובדא דישו

(e) Answer: Even then, whenever it was necessary, they would return to the Lishkas ha'Gazis, like they did in the case of Yeshu.

והא דפריך לקמן בפרק היו בודקין (שם) 'ור' יוחנן בן זכאי מי הוה בסנהדרי'?

1. Implied question: In that case, why does the Gemara ask in Perek Hayu Bodkin 'And was Raban Yochanan ben Zakai (who was active during the forty years prior to the Churban) on the Sanhedrin'. Seeing as even during those forty years Beis-Din would sometimes convene?

משום דמה שבדק בעוקצי תאנים בדין רוצח הוא, והא דגלו משום דנפישי רוצחים הוו, ומשום רציחה לא היו חוזרין.

2. Answer: The case under discussion, where R. Yochanan ben Zakai examined the witnesses regarding the stalks of figs, was one concerning murder. Now, seeing as the reason that the Sanhedrin went into exile was due to the increase in murders, they would return to the Lishkas ha'Gazis for other cases involving he death penalty, but not for murder cases.

וא"ת, והא חזינן כמה כופרים בעיקר דמתים כדרכם?

(f) Question: But surely, we find many people who deny the existence of Hash-m completely, yet they die natural death?

וי"ל, דזכות מילה תלה ושכר מצות שעשו משתלמין בעולם הזה, כדכתיב (דברים ז) "ומשלם לשונאיו".

(g) Answer: That is because the merit of B'ris Milah earns them a lease of life, and after that, they are merely receiving the reward for the Mitzvos that they performed, in this world, as the Pasuk writes " ... and He pays those whom He hates in their lifetime, in order to destroy them".

ועובדא דריש הפועלים (ב"מ דף פג:) ד'אפקוה לגברא וזקפוה, דהוא ובנו בעלו נערה

(h) Implied Question: In the case cited in 'ha'Po'alim', where they took out the man and his son who both had relations with a Na'arah ha'Me'urasah, why did they not punish them with the due punishment of stoning?

התם נמי זכות תולה לו, שלא נענש בסקילה ונידון בקלה.

(i) Answer #1: There too, some merit or other stood them in good stead, and they received a lesser punishment than they deserved.

א"נ, הוא ובנו לאו דוקא אלא בנו תחלה ואחר כך הוא, דמיתתו בחנק.

(j) Answer #2: Alternatively, 'he and his son' is La'av Davka' (not specific), only his son had relations with her first (and he was indeed sentenced to Sekilah), and then the father, who was only Chayav Chenek (for which he was hanged).

וי"מ, דנקט 'משחרב בית המקדש' משום דבזמן בית המקדש בגדי כהונה היו מכפרין.

(k) Answer #2 (to earlier question): The reason that the Gemara ask from after the Churban is because as long as the Beis-Hamikdash stood, the Bigdei Kehunah atoned.

מיהו ה"מ כשעשו תשובה.

(l) Qualification: Though that is only provided they did Teshuvah.


תוספות ד"ה כמאן כר' אחא

(SUMMARY: Tosfos query the implication that R. Acha does not hold of 'Omeid' by Dinei Nefashos from the Gemara in Shevu'as ha'Eidus, and prove that the Gemara retracts from it. They then question how R. Acha can hold Chayav in the case of Shimon ben Shetach, seeing as it is impossible to prove that the murder took place 'Toch K'dei Dibur of the warning).

משמע דרבי אחא לית ליה אומד בדיני נפשות.

(a) Clarification: This implies that R. Acha does not hold of 'Omeid' by Dinei Nefashos.

ותימה, דבפרק שבועת העדות (שבועות דף לד. ושם) משמע דאית לי', גבי שבועת העדות דאינו חייב אלא בתביעת ממון, ודריש ר' יוסי הגלילי מדכתיב "או ידע" בעדות המתקיימת בידיעה בלא ראייה. אמר רב פפא 'לימא ר' יוסי הגלילי לית ליה דרבי אחא, דאי אית ליה, בדיני נפשות משכחת לה כר"ש בן שטח'?

(b) Question: But in Perek Shevu'as ha'Eidus, it is implied that he does. Regarding Shevu'as ha'Eidus, which is only Chayav if one claims money, and where R. Yossi Darshens from "O Yada", that it even applies where the witness knows without having actually seen the transaction, Rav Papa asks there 'Does this mean that R. Yossi does not concur with R. Acha, because if he does, it means that by Dinei Nefashos, he will be Chayav in the case of R. Shimon ben Shetach?

ויש לומר, דלמסקנא דהכא, דמשני 'מתני' אפילו כרבנן', אין צריך לאוקמי דרב אחא בדיני ממונות דווקא.

(c) Answer: According to the Gemara's conclusion here, which establishes the Beraisa even like the Rabbanan, it is no longer necessary to confine R. Acha to Dinei mamonos.

מיהו בדוחק יש למצוא דלחייב רבי אחא בההיא דר' שמעון בן שטח - דמנא ידעו עדים שהרגו בתוך כדי דיבור של התראה, כיון שלא ראו אלא מאומד?

(d) Problem: It will be extremely difficult however, to establish R. Acha le'Chiyuv in the case of Shimon ben Shetach, because how can the witnesses possibly know that the murderer killed the victim within 'Toch K'dei Dibur' of the warning, since they did not see the actual murder, and only arrive at their conclusion through assessment?

ואי איירי בחבר ניחא, וכר' יוסי דאמר 'לא בעי התראה' (לעיל ד' ח:).

(e) Answer: Unless the murderer was a Chaver, and R.Acha holds like R. Yossi, in whose opinion a Chaver does not require warning) as we learned in the first Perek.


תוספות ד"ה מיום שפתחה כו'

כל דמים נבלעים בארץ, אלא שרישומן ניכר; ושל הבל אין רישומן ניכר כלל.

(a) Clarification: All blood is absorbed in the ground, only it leaves a stain; whereas that of Hevel did not.


תוספות ד"ה מכנף הארץ זמירות שמענו

כתוב בתשובת הגאונים שאין בני א"י אומרים קדושה אלא בשבת, דכתיב (ישעיה ו) גבי חיות "שש כנפים לאחד", וכל כנף הוא אומר שירה אחת ביום בששת ימי החול; וכשמגיע שבת, אומרים החיות לפני המקום 'רבש"ע, אין לנו עוד כנף!' והקב"ה משיב להם 'יש לי עוד כנף אחד בארץ שאומר לפני שירה, שנאמר "מכנף הארץ זמירות שמענו" .'

1. Halachic Observation: It is written in the Teshuvas ha'Ge'onim that the B'nei Eretz Yisrael only say Kedushah on Shabbos. This is because the Navi Yeshayah writes with regard to the Chayos ha'Kodesh that each one possessed six wings. Now with each wing, he would say Shirah on a different day of the week. When Shabbos arrived, the Chayos said to Hash-m 'Ribono shel Olam, we have no wings left with which to sing Shirah!' To which Hash-m replied 'I have one wing left on earth (Yisrael) who will say Shirah', as the Pasuk writes "mi'K'naf ha'Aretz Zemiros Yomeru".


תוספות ד"ה לטובה לא פתחה

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explain why the Pasuk "Tivlo'eimo Aretz" (which is a good thing) is not a contradiction to what we just said, that, after accepting the blood of Hevel, the earth never again opened its mouth for the good).

וא"ת, והא כתיב (שמות טו) "תבלעמו ארץ"?

(a) Question: But did the Torah not write (in the Shirah) "the earth swalloed them (i.e. buried the Egyptians), which is for the good?

טובת האומות אינה קרויה 'טובה'.

(b) Answer: Something good that happens to the gentile nations is not called 'good'.